coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Troyes, France.
5.  On an unspecified date in 2001 the applicant brought an action to recover her property from a third person. On 1 November 2001 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd granted her claim in full and awarded her, inter alia, 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of the non-pecuniary damage.
6.  On 11 September 2002 the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the above judgment on appeal. The judgment was enforced in full.
7.  On 9 August 2003 the other party to the proceedings lodged an application for a supervisory review of the judgment of 1 November 2001, as upheld on appeal on 11 September 2002.
8.  On 29 October 2003 a judge of the Volgograd Regional Court examined the above application and decided to remit the case for examination on the merits by the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court. He presented the case to the Presidium as the judge rapporteur.
9.  On 13 November 2003 the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court held a supervisory-review hearing. It held that the lower courts had erroneously applied the substantive law. On that ground it quashed the judgment of 1 November 2001, as upheld on appeal on 11 September 2002, in the part concerning the award in respect of the non-pecuniary damage. Both the applicant and the defendant attended the hearing and made submissions to the court. The decision was delivered by four judges. The judge rapporteur did not take part in the deliberations or voted on the case.
10.  On 12 January 2004 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd obliged the applicant to repay RUB 5,000 which she had received by virtue of the judgment of 1 November 2001.
4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Moscow.
5.  In November 2001 the applicant, a retired military officer, brought proceedings against the Military Service Commission of Moscow (Военный комиссариат г. Москвы – “the Commission”) for recalculation of his pension as from 1993 to take account of the fact that he served in the extreme north of Russia which made him eligible for a higher pension.
6.  On 3 December 2002 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow granted the applicant’s claim, adjusted his pension by a coefficient 1.4 and awarded him 221,913.54 Russian roubles (RUB) in arrears.
7.  The Commission did not lodge an ordinary appeal against the judgment and it became binding and enforceable on 16 December 2002.
8.  On 26 December 2002 the defendant enforced the judgment in a part concerning the lump sum of RUB 221,913.54. The monthly pension payments were calculated based on a coefficient of 1.4 in accordance with the judgment of 3 December 2002 during the period from December 2002 until August 2004.
9.  On 3 December 2003 the Commission filed an application for supervisory review, claiming that the civil-law provisions on which the court based its judgment were not relevant to the applicant.
10.  On 18 May 2004 the applicant was informed about the initiation of the supervisory-review procedure.
11.  On 20 May 2004 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court held a supervisory-review hearing. It held that the first-instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law. On that ground it quashed the judgment of 3 December 2002 and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. Before the announcement of the judgment the applicant was asked to wait outside the courtroom. At the same time the respondent remained there. The decision of the court was announced to the applicant by the bailiff. The applicant received a copy of the final decision on 6 August 2004.
12.  On 28 February 2005 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claim for recalculation of his pension. At the same time, the court rejected the Commission’s claim for recovery of the sum already paid to the applicant in arrears pursuant to the judgment of 3 December 2002, since such recovery was not possible under the domestic law. On 10 June 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in the town of Kamyshin in the Volgograd Region.
5.  On 23 April 2002 the Tsentralny District Court of Volgograd allowed the applicant’s claim for housing aid and awarded her 209,550 Russian roubles (RUB) against the Ministry of Finance. The District Court found that the applicant was entitled to thirty-three square metres (sq. m), and that the average price per sq. m in the region at the relevant time was RUB 6,350.
6.  The parties did not appeal against the judgment and it became final on 4 May 2002.
7.  On 28 May 2002 the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the local office of the Ministry of Finance.
8.  By letter of 24 October 2002, in response to the applicant’s query about the state of enforcement proceedings, the Ministry advised her that an application for supervisory review of the above judgment had been lodged.
9.  On 15 November 2002 the applicant submitted the writ to the bailiffs’ service.
10.  On 6 December 2002 the bailiff returned the writ to the District Court because it had failed to set out its period of validity. On 17 January 2003 the District Court sent the corrected writ to the bailiff.
11.  On 28 February 2003 the bailiff opened enforcement proceedings. He discontinued them on 12 May 2003 because the bailiffs’ service was not competent to enforce judgments against the State. He advised the applicant to submit her writ of execution to the Ministry.
12.  On 26 June 2003 the applicant requested the District Court to rectify an error in the writ. On 1 July 2003 the District Court forwarded the rectified writ to the applicant. It was marked “duplicate”.
13.  On 22 July 2003 the applicant submitted it to the Ministry.
14.  On 9 September 2004 the District Court sent the Ministry a new version of the writ, without the note “duplicate”. It explained that the court secretary had marked the previous writ as “duplicate” by mistake. On 15 September 2004 the applicant also submitted to the Ministry the rectified writ, without the “duplicate” mark. She referred to the District Court’s explanations of 9 September 2004. The Ministry received the applicant’s writ on 22 September 2004.
15.  By letter of 8 October 2004, the Ministry requested the applicant to explain why she had submitted a duplicate of the writ.
16.  On 30 December 2004 the applicant received the sum of money awarded to her under the judgment of 23 April 2002.
4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Szczecin.
5.  On an unspecified date in 1993 two sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant were instituted before the Szczecin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The applicant was charged with armed robbery. On 10 May 1994 the respective proceedings were joined.
6.  On 26 October 1999 the Szczecin District Court gave judgment and convicted the applicant.
7.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal.
8.  On 16 February 2000 the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) remitted the case.
9.  According to the applicant’s submissions, the court refused to send him copies of the relevant documents concerning the impugned proceedings. Because of this, he could not submit detailed information about the dates of hearings and the reasons for their adjournment.
10.  On 28 February 2005 the Szczecin District Court again gave judgment and sentenced the applicant to three years and six months’ imprisonment.
11.  According to the Government’s submissions, the first-instance judgment was upheld by the Regional Court on appeal and the proceedings terminated in July 2005.
12.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with acting as part of an organised criminal group. The applicant has failed to produce any documents concerning this set of proceedings; he only stated that he had been convicted by a judgment of the Kraków Court of Appeal on 4 April 1996.
13.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). He sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings in his case had been excessive and requesting an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN - approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)).
14.  On 13 January 2005 the Szczecin Regional Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings, finding that there had been some periods of unjustified inactivity (lasting from several months to some three years) on the part of the Szczecin District Court. It awarded the applicant PLN 5,000 (approx. EUR 1,222) in just satisfaction. Referring to the amount of just satisfaction, the court relied on the fact that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings because he “had lodged numerous letters with the court” and “because of his state of health a number of hearings had to be adjourned”.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bucharest.
5.  In a final decision of 28 June 1993, the Bucharest County Court convicted the applicant of fraud, sentenced her to six years’ imprisonment and awarded damages to the victim. The court did not address the argument that the offence had been pardoned by Decree no. 11/1988.
6.  On 5 August 1993 the applicant was placed in detention, where she remained until 22 July 1994.
7.  In a final decision of 3 October 1995, the Supreme Court of Justice acting on an application of the Procurator General (recurs în anulare), quashed the final decision of 28 June 1993 and ended the criminal trial against the applicant on the ground that the offences committed had been pardoned. It upheld the remainder of the decision.
8.  On 6 March 1998 the applicant lodged an action with the Bucharest County Court, under Articles 998-999 of the Civil Code, seeking compensation from the State for the damage caused by the “severe miscarriage of justice which had led to her illegal detention for almost one year”. She claimed 200,000,000 Romanian lei (ROL).
9.  The case was tried by ten courts, corresponding to three levels of jurisdiction. The courts examined the case either under Article 504 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings (“CCP”) or under the Civil Code. In her pleas the applicant invoked the Civil Code supplemented by the CCP provisions above.
10.  In a final decision of 28 January 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the applicant’s action. It considered that the facts of the case allowed for the application of Article 504 of the CCP as interpreted by the Constitutional Court’s decision no. 45 of 10 March 1998 (see paragraph 18 below). However, it considered, for the first time, that the applicant should have brought her claims within one year from the date on which her conviction had been quashed (Article 505 of the CCP). As she failed to do so, her action was time-barred.
11.  On 17 February 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice delivered an attestation informing the applicant that her action had been rejected as time‑barred.
12.  On 7 November 2003 the applicant obtained a copy of the final decision of 28 January 2003, after several unsuccessful attempts and complaints lodged with the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Court of Justice concerning the unreasonable delay in the drafting of the court decision.
5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Lensk in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic of the Russian Federation.
6.  In 2003 the applicant brought an action against the Government, seeking to recover the monetary value of a State promissory note for purchasing of a Russian-made car.
7.  On 4 March 2003 the Lenskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic found for the applicant and awarded her 138,967 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation and RUB 2,802.32 in reimbursement of the court fee, payable by the Ministry of Finance.
8.  On 21 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic (hereinafter – “the Supreme Court”) dismissed the appeal by the Ministry of Finance and upheld the judgment. The Supreme Court rejected the Ministry’s argument that the first-instance court had unlawfully refused to apply the Commodity Bonds Act governing redemption of promissory notes for purchasing of cars.
9.  On 15 May 2003 the Ministry of Finance lodged an application for supervisory review before the Presidium of the Supreme Court. It claimed that the courts had unlawfully refused to apply the provisions of the Commodity Bonds Act and the 2001 State Programme for Redemption of Promissory Notes. It is unclear whether any procedural decision was taken on that application.
10.  On 28 June 2004 the Ministry of Finance introduced a new application for supervisory review, invoking the same arguments. According to the Government, the proceedings on the applicant’s claim had been previously “suspended” on 23 October 2003 because the Supreme Court had sent a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court had been requested to decide on compatibility of the Commodity Bonds Act with the Constitution.
11.  On 7 October 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court granted the Ministry’s application for supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 4 March 2003, as upheld on 21 April 2003, and dismissed the applicant’s claim in full. In so deciding, the Presidium noted that the courts had failed to take into account the provisions of the 2001 State Programme for Redemption of Promissory Notes which had extended the period of redemption until 31 December 2004. In the Presidium’s assessment, that failure amounted to a substantial violation of the material law warranting re-consideration of the case.
4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Donetsk. At the material time he was a tax inspector.
5.  On 4 July 1997 the Kyivsky District Court of Donetsk (hereinafter “the District Court”) fined the applicant UAH 225 under an administrative procedure for a corruption offence. The applicant was consequently dismissed from his position.
6.  On 17 November 1997 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed this judgment and terminated the proceedings.
7.  On 22 May 2000 the District Court awarded the applicant UAH 500 in compensation for moral damage to be paid by the State Treasury of Ukraine.
8.  This judgment was not appealed and became final on 2 June 2000.
9.  In June 2000 the Kyivsky Office of the Bailiffs’ Service in Donetsk initiated the enforcement proceedings.
10.  On 22 October 2004 the writ of execution was transferred to the Pechersky Office of the Bailiffs’ Service in Kyiv, which on 7 December 2004 refused to open the enforcement proceedings and transferred the writ to the Department of the Bailiffs’ Service of the Ministry of Justice (hereinafter “the Department”).
11.  On 24 January 2005 the Department refused to open the enforcement proceedings on the ground that it fell outside of its competence.
12.  Since May 2005 the enforcement proceedings are pending before the Donetsk Department of the Bailiffs’ Service.
13.  The judgment of 22 May 2000 remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Donetsk.
5.  On 7 November 2000 and 28 February 2003 the Kuybyshevsky District Court of Donetsk (hereinafter “the Kuybyshevsky Court”) ordered 
the State-owned mining company “Zhovtnevy Rudnyk” (Z.) to pay the applicant, respectively, UAH 3,641[2] and 4,403[3] in salary arrears.
6.  On 18 December 2000 and 22 April 2003 the Kuybyshevsky Bailiffs’ Office of Donetsk instituted enforcement proceedings.
7.  In October 2004 the execution writs were transferred to the Voroshylivsky Bailiffs’ Office of Donetsk.
8.  In May 2003 Z. was liquidated and the State-owned company “Donetskvugillya” assumed its debts.
9.  In December 2004 “Donetskvugillya” was divided into three State-owned companies “Donetska Vugilna Energetychna Kompaniya”, “Donetska Vugilna Koksova Kompaniya” and the coal-mine “Gorkogo”.
10.  During January – September 2005 the applicant was paid UAH 2,456[4] under the judgment of 7 November 2000 and UAH 2,781[5] under the judgment of 28 February 2003.
11.  According to the ruling of 31 March 2006 of the Kuybyshevsky Court, “Donetska Vugilna Energetychna Kompaniya” was assigned as a debtor.
12.  In the remainder, the judgments given in the applicant’s favour are still unenforced.
4.  All forty-three applicants are Ukrainian nationals who live in the Lugansk Region. They are represented by Mr Nikolay Kozyrev.
5.  The forty-two applicants (see Annex) are/were employees or relatives of employees of State-owned mining companies. During 1999 - 2003 the Krasny Luch Court rendered decisions the applicants’ favour concerning the recovery of salary and/or social benefits arrears, which were enforced in full in 2004 - 2005 with the exception of the judgment in favour of Mr Korniyenko, which remains unenforced (see Annex for details).
6.  Some of the applicants attempted to claim compensation against the Bailiffs’ Service for the delay in the enforcement of the judgments given in their favour, however, these attempts have been to no avail.
7.  After the institution of the Convention proceedings, Mr Boiko Vladimir Ivanovich, Mr Bakushev Valentin Ivanovich, and Mr Butorin Viktor Nikolayevich died. Their widows, Mrs Boiko Valentina Iosifovna, Mrs Bakusheva Tamara Trofimovna, and Butorina Irina Nikolayevna, informed the Court that they wished to pursue the applications of their late husbands.
8.  The 43rd applicant, Mrs Melnikova Inessa Gennadiyevna, is a former employee of the collective agricultural enterprise “Krasnoluchsky” (KSP). The decision given by the Krasny Luch Court on 26 December 2001 ordering KSP to pay her UAH 3,519 in salary arrears was enforced in full on 4 April 2007.
6.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Moscow.
7.  The applicant was a party to a civil dispute with her former husband over a flat which they occupied under a tenancy agreement. The Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow twice rendered judgments unfavourable to the applicant but the Moscow City Court quashed them on appeals and remitted the case for fresh examinations.
8.  The new hearing of the case was set for 14 May 2002. The Nagatinskiy District Court was composed of Ms F. (presiding judge), Ms B. and Mr S. (lay assessors). Prior to that, on 6 March 2001 in accordance with Section 5 of the Lay Assessors Act the acting President of the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow assigned the above two lay assessors to sit with judge F.
9.  Before the court started to examine the claims, the applicant challenged the composition of the bench. She alleged a breach of rules on the appointment of lay assessors in that the lay assessors Ms B. and Mr S. had not been drawn by lot contrary to the requirements of the Federal Law on the Lay Assessors of the Federal Courts of General Jurisdiction (Федеральный Закон «О народных заседателях федеральных судов общей юрисдикции в Российской Федерации»). However, the applicant’s motion of challenge was rejected. No breach of the rules governing the calling of lay assessors was established.
10.  At the next hearing of the case on 18 June 2002 the lay assessors Ms B. and Mr S. were absent.
11.  On 1 July 2002 the presiding judge F. in accordance with Section 9 of the Lay Assessors Act “drew lots” among the lay assessors Ms B. and Mr S. assigned to her on 6 March 2001 by the acting President of the Nagatinskiy District Court, and chose both of them for sitting at the hearing of the applicant’s case.
12.  On 1 July 2002 the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow composed of Ms F. (presiding judge), Ms B. and Mr S. (lay assessors), dismissed the applicant’s action.
13.  The applicant appealed against the judgment. In her grounds for appeal the applicant again raised the issue of the lay assessors being appointed in breach of rules set forth in the Lay Assessors Act. In particular, she submitted that the case file did not contain the record of selection of the lay assessors Mr S. and Ms B.
14.  On 30 January 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The applicant’s argument about the lack of record of the selection of lay assessors in the case file was found in itself insufficient for quashing of the judgment on appeal. The court did not go into further examination of the applicant’s allegation.
15.  The applicant subsequently produced documentary evidence showing that in the course of 2002 the lay assessor Mr S. sat in court in unrelated civil cases with the judge F. on 5 and 30 April, 14, 23 and 24 May, 5, 19 and 27 June, 1 July, 1, 11 and 12 November, 19 and 30 December. The applicant also produced documentary evidence showing that in the course of 2002 the lay assessor Ms B. sat on the bench with the judge F. in unrelated cases on 4 March, 14 May, 5 and 27 June, 1 July, 4 and 17 October.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the town of Novovoronezh in the Voronezh Region.
5.  The applicant was entitled to a disability allowance and commodity benefits. She sued the local Social Security Committee for the unpaid allowance and benefits, and claimed their re-adjustment.
6.  By judgment of 16 July 2003, the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region awarded the applicant 22,109.75 Russian roubles (RUB) for the period from 1 July 2002 to 31 July 2003. On 14 October 2003 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant received the money due to her on 7 June 2005. On 5 September 2005 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 5,552.02 as compensation for inflationary losses caused by the delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 16 July 2003, as upheld on 14 October 2003. It appears that the compensation award has not been paid to the applicant.
7.  By judgment of 5 January 2004, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 13,971.25 for the period from 1 August to 31 December 2003. This judgment became final on 15 January 2004. It was enforced on 4 August 2005.
8.  On 15 April 2004 the Town Court increased the applicant’s monthly allowance to RUB 5,664.84 and awarded her RUB 9,494.52 in arrears for the period from 1 January to 31 March 2004. The judgment became final on 26 April 2004. It was enforced on 25 August 2005.
9.  On 30 September 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 9,494.52. On 11 October 2004 the judgment became final. The applicant received the money on 25 August 2005.
10.  By judgment of 15 November 2005, the Town Court awarded RUB 5,700.35 as compensation for inflationary losses in respect of the sums awarded to the applicant on 5 January, 15 April and 30 September 2004. It appears that the compensation award has not been paid to the applicant.
11.  By judgment of 16 February 2004, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 4,973.57. The judgment became final on 26 February 2004. Apparently, it remains without enforcement.
12.  On 6 September 2004 the Town Court awarded RUB 2,272.30 to the applicant and increased her monthly commodity benefits to RUB 679.78. The judgment became final on 17 September 2004. It appears that on 16 July 2004 the applicant received RUB 500 in execution of that judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kiskunhalas.
5.  In July 1995 the applicant, together with six other individuals, filed a criminal report against Mr C., accusing him of fraud. In the ensuing criminal proceedings, the applicant, acting as a civil party, pursued compensation claims.
6.  Until the termination of the investigations on 13 August 1996, 51 witnesses were heard and several items of physical evidence were collected.
7.  A bill of indictment was preferred on 3 March 1997. The defendants, of whom by then there were eight, were charged with twenty-nine counts of fraud. On 14 January 1999 the President of the Kecskemét District Court gave the case priority.
8.  After 45 hearings, on 13 April 2005 the District Court gave judgment. It convicted, inter alia, Mr C. and obliged him to pay the applicant, one of the eleven civil parties in the case by then, three million Hungarian forints in compensation. The judgment was served on 18 June and became final on 27 June 2005. However, since Mr C. had meanwhile become insolvent, the applicant could not recover the damage he had sustained.